/9

0 08
2
D
AR
AW ard
H IP on
R S Le
n
BE Joh
EM :
M ner
L in
NA W
IO
EG
R
THE 82ND EDITION FOR ALL PLYMOUTH TEACHERS DECEMBER 2008

THE NUT: “We work up to a standard not down to a price”

Your pay cut

this month is
about £60
* UPS3

Independent of Government and not affiliated to any political party


CRUMBS...
Seasons Greetings to all
our readers
Charitable Trusts still
have to look at the
bottom line..
Who said, “Sharp
commercial practice by
charitable trusts is not
unknown?”
CUT OUT AND KEEP!
“Teachers are expected to
contribute, both orally and in
w r it ing as a p pr opr i at e, to
curriculum development by sharing
their professional expertise with
colleagues and advising on
effective practice.
This does not mean that they can
take on the responsibility of, and
accountability for, a subject area
or to manage other teachers with-
out appropriate additional pay-
ment. Responsibilities of this
nature should be part of a post
that is in the leadership group or
linked to a post which attracts a
TLR on the basis set out in para
22.”
STP&CD 2008, Section 3: Guidance on
School Teachers’ Pay & Conditions
(General), P168, para 65

Has any Plymouth-based teacher been successful in applying for this? Let us know...
Thanks to NORTHERN TEACHER and CLASSROOM TEACHER newsletters
and Wilts & Wakefield NUT for much of the content
The greater part of this letter was recently sent to all Wiltshire HTs
by the ATL, NASUWT & NUT to provide them with the professional
association’s position on the expectations of teachers on the Upper
Pay Scale (UPS). We have already had many enquiries from members
about this. Plymouth NUT fully endorses the views expressed below:

After 31 December 2008, all safeguarding for Management Allowances (MAs)

comes to an end. The rules of MA safeguarding have required teachers to
continue to undertake appropriate additional duties in return for their MA
payment having been protected. This meant teachers not awarded a TLR
payment, or awarded a TLR lower in value than their MA payment could be
required to continue to carry out their additional responsibilities as long as
safeguarding remained in place. The removal of safeguarding, however,
means that those responsibilities should also end. (Some teachers have
already lost their MA safeguarding as their salaries increased during the
safeguarding period – when the MA was lost and subsumed into their
substantive salary the additional duties came to an end).

Schools should now consider whether and how those responsibilities should
continue to be undertaken. If the work in question still needs to be carried
out the school should either establish a new TLR payment in the staffing
structure to give that teacher an appropriate payment for that work, or
consider whether another teacher (or teachers) should take on all or part of
the work in return for an appropriate payment reflecting the revised level of
responsibility. Such changes should, of course, be subject to proper
consultation within the school.

In some schools, it has been argued that teachers can be required to under-
take additional whole-school or managerial work above the professional
duties of normal teachers without appropriate TLR payments, simply because
they are on the Upper Pay Spine or are on UPS3. This is not the case. Any
additional responsibility should attract an appropriate level of TLR payment.
The UPS was introduced by the then Secretary of State, David Blunkett MP,
to encourage and reward good teachers who wished to stay in the classroom
and not as an alternative to the payment of TLR points.

New guidance in the 2008 School Teachers Pay and Conditions Document
advises that responsibility and accountability for subject areas or
management of other teachers should be connected to TLR posts or
leadership group posts. While teachers may be expected to contribute to
curriculum development by sharing their professional expertise with
colleagues and advising on effective practice, additional responsibilities
should attract additional payments.

Is this an issue for you?

Turn to page 4 and contact the NUT
 New report shows mixed
results for Academies
PricewaterhouseCoopers has published its fifth and
final annual report into the Academies programme. It
found that there was insufficient evidence that
academies were a model for school improvement.

The report acknowledges that the proportion of pupils

from socially deprived backgrounds in academies has
actually declined, even though it was these
communities that academies were designed to help
most.

Commenting on the report, Christine Blower, Acting

General Secretary of the NUT, said: “All the
features that PwC identify as positive in relation
to academies have little to do with the co-called
‘academy effect’ and everything to do with
headhunting, significantly increased resources
compared with other schools, despite the
avowed focus of academies targeting those
pupils. In addition, exclusions are much higher
than those in other schools.”
How will staff benefit from being employed in a trust
school? No, can’t think of one either...

COMING IN JAN 09—Plymouth NUT's dedicated website: links include the

national NUT site, DCSF,
and BBC education

Plymouth Division:
plymnut@teacher.clara.co.uk
01503 240527
National Executive Member:
b.frost@executive.nut.org.uk
01647 433988
Regional Office:
south.west@nut.org,uk
01392 258028